Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
K. Usharani
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing Unit and Urban Development Dept., Chennai 9 and Others
W.P. Nos. 13243 of 2013 and others
Decided on: 8 January 2014
K. Thilageswaran, for Petitioner
S. Gomathinayagam, A.A.G., assisted by J. Jayaseelan, for T.N.H.B., M.S. Ramesh, A.G.P. and S. Diwakar, A.G.P., for Respondents
The Housing Board was entitled to collect the enhanced land cost and statutory interest from the allottees in accordance with the judgment in T.N. Housing Board v. Service Society (2011) 11 SCC 13.
Headnote:
Housing Board - Allotment of Plots and Flats - Land Acquisition Act - T.N. Housing Board v. Service Society (2011) 11 SCC 13 - Summary: The petitioners, allottees of housing plots or flats, challenged the fixation of final cost, demand for interest and penal interest on differential cost. The Housing Board was entitled to collect the enhanced land cost and statutory interest from the allottees. The impugned notices lacked the break up of cost as indicated in T.N. Housing Board v. Service Society. The Housing Board was permitted to collect the differential cost and statutory interest in accordance with the judgment in Service Society. The impugned notices were set aside, and the division was directed to prepare a statement of cost indicating the development cost and land cost and statutory interest in the light of the judgment in Service Society.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, allottees of housing plots or flats, challenged the fixation of final cost, demand for interest and penal interest on differential cost by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Finding of the Court:
The Housing Board was entitled to collect the enhanced land cost and statutory interest from the allottees. The impugned notices lacked the break up of cost as indicated in T.N. Housing Board v. Service Society. The Housing Board was permitted to collect the differential cost and statutory interest in accordance with the judgment in Service Society. The impugned notices were set aside, and the division was directed to prepare a statement of cost indicating the development cost and land cost and statutory interest in the light of the judgment in Service Society.
Issues: Challenged fixation of final cost, demand for interest and penal interest on differential cost by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The Housing Board was entitled to collect the enhanced land cost and statutory interest from the allottees. The impugned notices lacked the break up of cost as indicated in T.N. Housing Board v. Service Society. The Housing Board was permitted to collect the differential cost and statutory interest in accordance with the judgment in Service Society.
Final Decision: The impugned notices were set aside, and the division was directed to prepare a statement of cost indicating the development cost and land cost and statutory interest in the light of the judgment in Service Society. The Housing Board was permitted to collect the differential cost and statutory interest in accordance with the judgment in Service Society. The writ petitions were allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
1. The petitioners are all allottees of either housing plots or flats constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the fixation of final cost after considerable period and demand for payment of interest and penal interest on differential cost.
2. There are five batch of cases relating to Coimbatore, Erode, Vellore Tiruvannamalai and Salem Districts.
3. Since the principal issue raised herein is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.N. Housing Board v. Service Society, (2011) 11 SCC 13 : LNIND 2011 SC 264, I am not dealing with the individual facts of each of the writ petitions, except to narrate the facts of one lead case from each District to give an indication of the grievance made by the allottees.
Coimbatore District
W.P. No. 225 of 2013:
4. The petitioner made an application for allotment of a housing plot formed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at Upplipalayam, Coimbatore. The allotment of a plot having an area of 1071 sq.ft. was made on 24 March 1992. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as Housing Board), fixed the tentative cost of Plot at Rs. 4,19,462/-. The final cost was not fixed on account of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the landowners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner paid the entire cost. Since final cost was not determined, sale deed was not executed. Finally, the petitioner received the impugned demand notice directing payment of differential land cost and interest.
Tiruvannamalai District
W.P. No. 1432/2013
5. The petitioner was given allotment of a housing plot having an area of 1227 sq.ft. at Thamarai Nagar, Tiruvannamalai, by the Housing Board as per order dated 24 January 1996. The tentative cost was fixed at Rs. 2,41,925/-. The petitioner paid the entire tentative cost in installments with interest. The final cost was not fixed on account of the pending land acquisition proceedings. While so, the Housing Board, issued the impugned notice demanding differential land cost, with exorbitant interest calculated from the date of original allotment.
Vellore District
W.P. No. 21765 of 2013
6. The petitioner was given allotment of a residential house by the Housing Board at Thirupattur. The petitioner paid the tentative cost fixed by the Housing Board, while making the allotment on 7 November 1991.
While so, the Housing Board issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to pay the differential cost along with interest calculated on the purchase cost.
Erode District
W.P. No. 13243/2013
7. The petitioner was allotted a plot having an area of 1453 sq.ft. developed by the Housing Board at Muthumpalayam Housing Unit, Erode. The petitioner paid the entire tentative cost of Rs. 73,900/- along with interest.
While so, the Housing Board issued a demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,54,481/- which includes differential land cost and exorbitant interest.
According to the petitioner, the Board is entitled to collect only the enhanced compensation payable to the land owners. Since amount under various heads were shown, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Housing Board to issue sale deed by collecting only the enhanced compensation fixed by the Reference Court.
Salem District:
W.P. No. 7637 of 2013:
8. The petitioner was given allotment of a housing plot at Annadhanapatti, by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The allotment was made in the year 1996. Since the land value was not determined, only tentative cost was fixed by the Housing Board. Thereafter, land value was fixed by the Reference Court and finally by the High Court. The High Court determined the land value at Rs. 5.50 per sq.ft. as against Rs. 16 per sq.ft. fixed by the Reference Court.
While so, the Housing Board issued the impugned notice dated 26 October 2012, directing payment of a sum of Rs. 4,79,545/-. According to the petitioner, the impugned notice does not contain any indication as to how the amount was calculate
